Category Archives: Transhuman News

Warning: This article does contain some spoilers

There may be few things in the world as libertarian as a strong, independent, pistol-packing black woman, but that is exactly what you will see in Harriet, the new biographical film about abolitionist Harriet Tubman.

As usual, I was very skeptical about Hollywoods ability to tell a historical story that is at least semi-accurate, but to my surprise, I was quite pleased with the way Mrs. Tubman was portrayed. The film follows Harriet from just before her escape from the Brodess Plantation in Dorchester County, Maryland, all the way up to her work as a spy for the Union Army during the Civil War.

This film has libertarian themes all throughout it, and had strong elements of individualism, faith, self-defense, and a central focus on the infinite value of individual liberty. Although this movie was not marketed as a faith-based film, there were Judeo-Christian elements during the entire 125 minute-run time. This was very important to the story as it is impossible to properly tell the story of the woman known as Moses without speaking of her faith in God, which she attributed to her success as a conductor on The Underground Railroad.

Mrs. Tubman was a fiery, gun-toting abolitionist and former slave who is credited with personally leading around 70 slaves to freedom, including her own family. The story was well written and pretty accurate for a Hollywood movie. The only real historical inaccuracies are some minor characters, such as a reformed bounty hunter named Walter, who aids Tubman in her escape, and a free black businesswoman named Marie Buchanon, who gave her shelter. The final scene in which Harriet prophesies that the son of her former slave master will die in the Civil War is also added for dramatic effect, according to Smithsoianmag, com.

I found myself particularly inspired by Harriets devotion to the cause of freedom not only for herself but for all slaves. There was a speech she gave in the film that stirred my heart as she spoke to her fellow abolitionists, urging them to step up to the plate and fight harder to end the tyranny of the slave trade. She went on to discuss how they had allowed themselves to become complacent because they were comfortable in their lifestyle living in elegant houses with their pretty wives. She added that she knew how important it was not to allow themselves to become accustomed to business as usual because she knew the price of freedom better than most of them because of her hardships.

I reflected on her words and thought to myself, how many of us living in America know the real cost of freedom? We talk about liberty and limited government principles, but are we truly willing to fight for those ideas which created the greatest nation the world has ever seen, or are we too comfortable living off our inheritance as American citizens as an ever-growing government seeks to enslave us? Are we really free as our founders intended, or are we living as slaves on some mental plantation? While technology has revolutionized our world for the better, as time has passed, it only goes to show that the issues we face today are not much different than the problems Harriet faced in her day.

The film also presented a lesson we can all learn from today in the character of Harriets sister Rachel, who seemed she would have rather lived under the tyranny of slavery than risk attempting to escape. Rachel died a slave which Harriet learned after a trip back to the Brodess Plantation to rescue her. Seeing this, I was reminded of the words of Thomas Jefferson, I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. Freedom is always dangerous, but I much prefer those dangers than enduring any kind of slavery under the illusion of safety.

The film ends with Harriet leading the Union Army during the Combahee Raid, which led to the rescue of more than 700 slaves. Harriet, along with the Union Troops, pointed her rifle at Confederate troops from their boats as the slaves rushed across the river to join Union forces.

Harriet, tells the story of a woman who was willing to do anything to ensure she and others lived free, and that the natural rights of all people were acknowledged and protected. This film is centered around the struggle to preserve liberty no matter what the cost, which is something that all lovers of liberty will appreciate. It is well worth the price of a ticket at your local movie theater.

Go here to see the original:
Movie Review: The Libertarian Themes in "Harriet" Biopic - The Libertarian Republic

Your Monday editorial, The dramatic link between freedom and prosperity, referenced the Economic Freedom of the World: 2019 Annual Report put out by the Fraser Institute. A cursory look at this report reveals that it merely looks at how well a country or states economy conforms to libertarian ideals in the areas of government spending, taxes, regulation, the legal system, property rights, monetary policy and trade. When the authors of the report talk about economic freedom, they are referencing only the economic freedom of business entities. Nowhere in the report does it look at the freedoms of individuals, economic or otherwise.

The report does not rely on hard data. The authors use a simple mathematical formula to reduce subjective judgments to represent the underlying distribution of each of the 10 components in the index.

Libertarian ideals do not correlate to increased individual well-being nor increased individual freedom within a society. Nor does the application of libertarian ideals correlate to a strong economy. Quite the contrary.

Forbes printed an article in 2012 titled Want A Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat! by Adam Hartung, which is based upon the research of Bob Deitrick and Lew Goldfarb who actually looked at hard data, not subjective opinions.

From the Forbes article: The authors looked at a range of economic metrics To (the authors) surprise they discovered that laissez-faire policies had far less benefits than expected and, in fact, produced almost universal negative economic outcomes for the nation!

When it comes to a stronger economy, a Democrat-led government is better than one led by Republicans.

Read more here:
LETTER: Freedom and prosperity have little to do with laissez-faire - Las Vegas Review-Journal

To the editor: George Skelton indicated that the Republican Party has lost considerable power since the passage of Proposition 187 in 1994, and he cites a number of reasons why.

With the Democrats in control of the Legislature and most state offices for the last 25 years, they should have had enough time to fix the various problems facing California.

We have some of the highest tax rates in the country, so why is it we have a massive homeless problem, high gas prices, a poor education system, bad highways, extremely high home prices and a boatload of other problems?

If Skelton is correct about Republicans being marginalized in California, then the party in power is not doing a very good job. Thanks to Skelton for his keen observation.

Paul Salerno, Riverside

..

To the editor: I am a registered Democrat and consider myself moderate or even libertarian. Like many, I often look at the candidates and vote for the lesser of two evils.

I have voted for Republicans in the past. I dont know exactly when I stopped, but it definitely was when the Republicans started nominating far-right (in my opinion) candidates.

The most memorable was the 1998 governors race between Democrat Gray Davis and Republican Dan Lungren. I did not like Davis, but I sure wasnt going to vote for Lungren.

Maybe that was when the GOP should have seen it needed to change.

Dennis Watson, Ventura

Read the original here:
The GOP is out of power in California. How's that been for us? - Los Angeles Times

If you want to run for president, New Hampshire is an easy place to start.

The relatively low barrier to getting on New Hampshire's primary ballot is legendary, something Secretary of State Bill Gardner has promoted eversince he first became the states chief election officer in 1976. Still, people might have questions about the ins and outs of this political tradition.

(This is an installment in an ongoing series of explainers about the New Hampshire primary. Check back for others. Have a question youd like answered? Let us know here.)

How does a person qualify or get on the ballot?

A candidate must fill out the declaration of candidacy form, confirming they meet the constitutional requirements to be president: Theyre at least 35 years of age, a natural born United States citizen and a resident for at least 14 years. On the declaration form, the candidate must also list their domicile their primary home and verify that they're a registered member of the party whose nomination they're seeking.

Theres also the matter of the filing fee: $1,000, which can be paid in either cash or cashiers check. The cost hasnt changed since 1980. If a candidate can't come up with money to pay the filing fee, they can collect 10 petition signatures from registered voters of each county in New Hampshire and those voters effectively nominate them for the ballot. The fee is so low (compared to other states) that no one has gone this route, Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan says.

New Hampshire is the one place where the fourth-grader who has the dream to grow up and be president can actually try to make it happen here, Scanlan says.

Will all the current candidates be listed on the ballot?

Yes, as long as they meet the qualifications and no one challenges their eligibility. The New Hampshire Secretary of State's office does not verify where each person lives, or if they are a natural born citizen. However, the state will follow up if presented with information a candidate is not qualifed. The candidates "swear under penalties of perjury" that they are qualified pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, clause 4.

The record number of candidates was 62, and that was the 1992 New Hampshire Primary, according to Secretary of State Bill Gardner. In 2016, there were 58 candidates.

A lot of people are running for president. Will they all be on the New Hampshire primary ballot?

Yes. Visit the Secretary of State's website for a listing of all those who have filed for president. All will make the ballot when its printed. The candidate filing period opened Oct. 30. It closes Nov. 15 at 5 p.m. and on that last day, declarations of candidacy are required to be submitted in person by the candidate.

The 2020 primary season has some notable recent developments. For one, former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is considering jumping into the race for the Democratic nomination and taking a pass on the New Hampshire primary filing. In that case, his name would not be on the New Hampshire ballot.

It's not unusual for the Secretary of State's office to receive declarations of candidacy on the final day of the filing period. Gardner notes that Gary Hart showed up at the State House on one of the final days in 1988. The same last-minute decision occurred this week with former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick throwing his hat into the Democratic primary on the second-to-last day of the filing period.

How do candidates who are neither Republican nor Democrat get on the ballot?

The first-in-the-nation presidential primary is for any officially recognized party in New Hampshire. Right now, only Democrats and Republicans are officially recognized by the state. The Libertarian Party, for example, is not currently anofficial party in New Hampshirebecause it did not receive at least 4 percent in the last state general election.

Third party candidates, or independent candidates, can get their name on the general election ballot but not in a primary.

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire is, however, planning to hold its own "Presidential Preference Primary" at its convention in January. While this won't be a state-sanctioned primary election, it will be used to "inform [the delegates representing the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire] of the voters preferences before they attend the national convention in May 2020, where the Libertarian Party will choose their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates."

In other words, Vermin Supreme, the fringe candidate perhaps best known for wearing a rubber boot on his head, will not be on the official 2020 New Hampshire primary ballot even though he has been in the past. While he has previously run as a Republican or a Democrat, this year he's running as a Libertarian. He remains on the campaign trail, still sporting that boot.

When is the New Hampshire Primary?

We don't know. Really. Most of the media (and campaign staffers) anticipate the date will be Feb. 11, 2020, because that's a week after the Iowa caucuses. But only Secretary of State Bill Gardner has the authority to set it, and he hasn't finalized that decision.

After a filing period closes, the Secretary of State's office starts the process of preparing the ballots, which will have the date printed on them. Per the Help America Vote Act, the state has to have the ballots delivered to towns and cities 45 days before a primary.

Read more here:
Primary School: What Do You Have to Do to Actually Run for President in N.H.? - New Hampshire Public Radio

When Polity asked me if Id write a book titled The Case for Universal Basic Income, I hesitated because Ive always felt myself to be a skeptical supporter rather than an outright advocate. In the end, I decided a case in terms of democratic institutional development and humanist governance could offer an antidote to how conjunctural debates set basic income in response to crises, as compensation for automation or for inequality in the form of anti-poverty policy. These foci in my view do not do justice to the key institutional innovations and ethical concerns. The democratic humanist case makes basic income part of an unfinished project of democratic development, as distinct from a platform for radical self-governance within deregulatory globalization. It helps us appraise two broader realities: First, providing shared services, financial resources, and skills opportunities in a way which recognizes individuals fundamental independence is vital to reverse a slide into social states in which individuals are governed ever more remotely by new administrative technologies. Second, preserving a sense of humanity also, relatedly, depends on generating institutions through which development can be recognized as a common and democratic challenge. Hence, rather than a form of redistribution, I see basic income as a step in the direction of more humanist governing, but I also argue that this involves ethical commitments and institutional capacities which are more complex.

On a broader level, I hope articulating my skepticism aids in showing how support for basic income is possible without complete agreement on the reasons, and that this helps overcome polemics which center on the belief that a case for basic income is necessarily libertarian. A rationale for basic income can be found in broader political and institutional shifts, the nature of which should make us realize that the old ideological wars of Socialism v Capitalism oversimplify and draw attention from the deeper reasons humanist governance is both ethically appealing and more effective.Louise Haagh

Why and how should we think about basic income in relation to wider social goals and economic reforms? An obvious reason for thinking through wider goals is that basic income embodies a humanist design of welfare and the economy: it is devised to support a persons independence and subsistence in a continuous and independence-respecting way. Hence, one needs to consider whether the background used as the basis for its defense is one that aligns or conflicts with this essential feature. Bringing the humanist life-long and individual form of basic income into view helps avert two forms of confusion.

The first is to do with the development model that grounds the basic income defense. Specifically, one should be careful not to take uncertainties linked with the globalization project as a necessary or positive background. Globalization cannot be the context against which a basic income is justified. A risk with rationalizing globalization is that basic income then becomes an anchor to justify norms and practices that are in direct conflict with the humanist and egalitarian values which the design of basic income embodies.

The way in which the humanist democratic defense engages the form of institutions and governing of the economy directly marks it out from the libertarian case. Left libertarians are distinguished from right libertarians by wanting a higher level of basic income, if not initially, then eventually. On the other hand, right and left libertarian justifications for basic income share a tendency to take the global market model as, respectively, a fact or a good. Left libertarians have made the case for basic income as needed to replace the postwar order of stable positions, in which case we should accept that basic income is enough to generate stable positions, or stable (income and occupational) positions are a past value. Left libertarians view a baseline of social welfare as necessary, though with clear limits. On the other hand, right libertarians view socializing welfare as against inalienable rights of individuals to resources they can claim through the market. This means left libertarians are equivocal about the use of the competition economy as a development model, whereas right libertarians see it as unequivocally good.

The democratic humanist case for basic income sees in basic income a mode of contesting competition as the primary social relation.

The classic left libertarian endorsement of basic income as a capitalist road to communism suggested that basic income enables society to cross a bridge to a state in which paternalist authority is limited, leisure predominates, and the alienation connected with working for external rewards ceases. However, does this account situate the value and context of basic income in sufficiently broad terms? In seemingly endorsing self-determination in forging diverse lifestyles to a point that eviscerates collective governance, left libertarianism overdraws individuals power in the global economy. The stress on direct transaction and choice makes social care rest too strongly on individual morals.

Van Parijss four-pronged justice frame assumes the world is one we find and parcel out: resources are like a shipwreck, to be divided, jobs are naturally scarce, society is a massive gift distribution machine, and life is a time-profile. The minimal job of states in this context is to ensure fair distribution of what exists to match the time-profile of people. On this basis, Van Parijs prioritizes basic income, alongside efficiency and individual responsibility. This then gives basic income a central and clear-cut market-justifying role. I defend basic income on different grounds, taking into account how economic development is dynamically rooted in institutions and plans humans create. Hence, prioritizing human development, it is the shape of institutions that ground human activities and social relations that should concern us collectively. In this case, the economics of human life is not about equal time-profiles, but about the equal value of developmental security. Basic income represents one dimension of development security necessarily bound to others.

More specifically, the democratic humanist case for basic income sees in basic income a mode of contesting competition as the primary social relation. Hence, in the democratic paradigm, committing to basic income should entail committing to humanist reform of the economy in other ways. Free exchange cannot be relied upon to generate human development-protective institutions directly. In this case, the competition economy is neither a fact nor an unalloyed good.

More specifically, the democratic case focuses on practical aspects of basic income the thing basic income protects, i.e. life-long security. This means the mechanism a simple equal payment (as a foundation within a wider set of protections) is not a form of justice in itself, but a means to an end. Basic income is defended in terms of a human development ethics rather than a distributive ethics. This difference changes the character of other debates. To illustrate, it is common to set basic income next to proposals many view as in the same family on account of being distributive and targeting individuals. For example, to offer more ostensibly palatable versions or forerunners or pathways to basic income, a series of proposals for distributing capital grants to youth or working-age adults (a single grant of between 25,000 and 50,000) through citizens wealth funds have re-emerged recently, reviving an old debate about the choice between such grants and the life-long support a basic income presents.

From a democratic development perspective, these two interventions are not directly comparable. First, basic income is distinctive because it is a continuing structure within the governing of the whole economy, whereas capital grants (CGs) leave the dynamic of the economy essentially intact. Second, basic income is a developmental structure for individuals, whereas CGs may or may not lead to a stable structure in a persons life. On their own, CGs reinforce the structure of personalized risk, and doing so they strengthen the values attending to punishing failure, and so potentially the justifiability of means-test and sanctions. On this basis, it is not clear that CGs are a good alternative to collective development policies, although they could be a component. In all, a focus on how the form of institutions and public policy generate complementarities in terms of human development invites an informationally broader view of cost and returns on investment.

Thinking of basic income as constitutive of human and economic development answers a number of more practical confusions, relating to the meaning of income and poverty, autonomy, and social equality and public reform, as I consider below.

The word income makes people assume the intention with basic income is to put an end to employment or organized work, or that giving people free money crowds out reasons to earn and contribute that are important. Basic income does the opposite, because it allows individuals to keep the grant when they earn. As such, basic income will take away the unfair disincentive of present income support systems that require persons to exhaust all their savings. If we think of secure subsistence as an infrastructure, like roads, or the Web, we can see how basic money can be considered enabling.

On the other hand, thinking of basic income as a response to poverty makes basic income a part of a compensatory rather than constitutive welfare paradigm, generating the problems listed earlier. A case in point is the IMFs cautious case for basic income in states without adequate public administration, and conversely a case against basic income in administratively developed societies. It is hard not to see in this reasoning simply the restatement of deeply embedded bias: the old problem of unidentifiable causality applied to public assistance. The idea that as mature welfare states have the apparatus to means-test, therefore targeting and careful administration of behaviour conditions are preferable, is like saying that no one should meet in person because we have Skype, or everything should be done via email, even when we know the phone is conflict-reducing because it is less formal. Like technology, administrative tools and systems have magnifying effects. The threat of having subsistence withdrawn is coercive, whether done by a computer or a public official. Some would say the former is worse. Modern societies generate technology so fast that mindless governing through the market can alter the function of institutions very quickly and imperceptibly. Modern society therefore requires more conscious awareness and debate of policies constitutive norms, so that change can be filtered accordingly.

Continued here:
Basic Income and Development Goals by Louise Haagh - Stanford Social Innovation Review

David Daly, Opinion contributor Published 1:51 p.m. ET Nov. 15, 2019 | Updated 1:58 p.m. ET Nov. 15, 2019

Governor Matt Bevin gave his concession speech and Andy Beshear and Jacqueline Coleman held a press conference. By Michael Clevenger/Courier Journal, Louisville Courier Journal

Cooler heads have prevailed: The vote counts from Kentuckys gubernatorial election were triple-checked, and stood up for Democratic attorney general Andy Beshear. Gov. Matt Bevin conceded the race, and now a transition will begin.

Thats good news for all Kentuckians. Close elections create fevered emotions, but talk about the legislature overturning an election decided by the people can challenge the fragile norms and trust on which our system rests.

Now would also be a good time to strengthen Kentuckys elections to be sure the voice of the people is always heard clearly, and that the rules inspire confidence in the results. One powerful reform would be for Kentucky to adopt ranked choice voting (RCV).

There are many good reasons why this simple fix has been adopted by a growing number of cities and states nationwide, all the way from Utah to Maine: It provides voters with more choices. It allows them to express their opinions more precisely. Perhaps most importantly, RCV helps reintroduce civility into our politics at this dangerously polarized moment, loosening our red vs blue death grip.

Joe Gerth: If Andy Beshear's victory speech is any indication, his term may be a snoozer. That's OK

RCV works like an instant runoff, or the way friends pick a different movie to see if the one they hoped to buy tickets for is sold out. Its so sensible that five southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina) ask their overseas voters to cast RCV ballots in runoff elections to save time and make more votes count.

Voters get to rank the candidates in order of preference. If a candidate receives more than 50%of the vote, he or shewins, just like any other election. If no one is ranked first by a majority, then the candidate that finished last is eliminated, and second choice votes come into play. You end up with a winner that has true majority support.

Voters at Atherton High School fill out ballots on Tuesday morning.May 21, 2019(Photo: By Michael Clevenger/Courier Journal)

Those arent the only advantages. Under an RCV system, independent and minor party candidates get to compete without any spoiler effect. Voters get more choices, but also dont have to fear that exercising that choice will help elect the major-party candidate they like the least.

RCV is especially useful in a primary, where there can be multiple candidates and low turnout limited to the most dedicated partisans. These tend to produce plurality winners with 30% or 35%of the vote which means that a majority of voters inside a party preferred a different candidate. But the plurality winner then moves on to the general election, providing voters with a choice between two extremes.

Think back to 2015, when Bevin won the Republican nomination. The Tea Party favorite captured the GOP nod in a four-candidate field with just 32.9%of the voteand defeated James Comer Jr. by just 83 votes. Maybe Bevin still wins that race. But whoever did win would have been strengthened by being a majority winner. It wasnt long ago that Kentucky laws would have required that race go to a whole separate runoff one that created extra expenses and logistical burdens that RCV avoids.

Thats because RCV incentivizes politicians to campaign in an entirely different way, both in primaries and general elections. Instead of going negative, firing up their base and winning with a plurality, they need to construct bridges and alliances, and work for second- and third-place votes. Its not enough to win with a base of 35%. You need that majority. Studies have shown that female candidates fare better under this consensus-building approach as well.

In this months gubernatorial election, Libertarian candidate John Hicks won more than 28,000 votes, a total thats five times the narrow difference between Bevin and Beshear. Some Republican officials used that to argue that Bevin should be considered the rightful winner, because the Libertarians would have likely backed the more conservative candidate. That concern disappears with RCV.

Kentucky Libertarians reveled in the spoiler status and what they called the delicious tears of Bevin backers. We split the vote. And we could not be more thrilled, the party boasted on social media.

The Libertarians may not have cost Bevin the race. Bevin dramatically underperformed the GOP statewide ticket. He was abandoned by large numbers of Republicans, not only a smaller number of Hicks voters. Studies have also shown that Libertarian votes tend to be drawn from both Republicans and Democrats, and that many others stay home without a candidate of their own. But having RCV would have answered the question.

Our politics needs more choices, more consensus, as well as less talk from both Democrats and Republicans about spoilers and less enthusiasm from independents about delicious tears. The Libertarians have signed on: If our friends in the major parties do not want this to happen again, they should think about passing ranked choice voting.

Theres an opportunity here for all Kentuckians to come together after a bitter election and unite behind a powerful set of principles: That every vote counts, that genuine majorities rule best, and that elections that build consensus and bring us together remain within our grasp.

"I truly wish the attorney general well as the next governor of this state as he assumes these responsibilities," Bevin said. Michael Clevenger/Courier Journal

David Daley, a former Courier Journal editor, is the author of two books on democracy and voting rights, including the forthcoming Unrigged: How Americans Are Battling Back to Save Democracy.

Read or Share this story: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2019/11/15/kentucky-elections-how-inspire-confidence-results/2567116001/

Read the original post:
Kentucky can strengthen elections and inspire confidence in the results. Here's how - Courier Journal

College life is one of the most fun and memorable parts of life. You get to meet new people, learn about different cultures and start building your career. College life can also be a bit overwhelming if you are not well-organized. Many college students would like to know how to get ahead in college since they find it challenging to balance everything from work to school and social life.

One of the ways to ease academic pressure is to ensure you complete all your assignments on time or before the deadline. Here are some tips to help you to always get ahead of your assignments

As you take classes for several units, you will have several assignments handed to you at the same time. To ensure you get both of them done in good time, start with the most urgent or the one that has an earlier deadline.

If you get assignments that have the same deadline, you can start with the most difficult one as it will take up most of your time.

Procrastination is a habit that makes your college life very difficult and creates unnecessary pressure. Getting started on your assignments as soon as you receive them will ease any last-minute pressure to complete any task. Getting started early also gives you time to research and produce assignments of high quality.

Trying to complete all your assignments at once is possible depending on how difficult it is. However, it can also be overwhelming, causing you to burn out and give up or hand in the assignment late. Practical college advice to get your assignment done on time or earlier is to break it down to smaller sections. Start by gathering the points through research then write them down. Have a schedule on the sections you would like to complete each day and ensure you follow through. Doing your assignments will be easier and more fun once you adopt this approach.

A little help goes a long way. When you are overwhelmed or need time to cater to other important matters, you can ask for help to complete your assignments. If you are wondering who will write my college paper for cheap, you do not need to worry anymore. There are many professional writers who are willing to come to the rescue any time. Online sites offering professional writing services are affordable and will deliver your work within the specified time. They will also maintain confidentiality so you do not need to worry about your lecturer finding out someone helped you with your assignment.

(https://unsplash.com/photos/94Ld_MtIUf0)

With numerous things to do, it is easy to forget to do some tasks. One of the best advice for students is to create and follow a schedule to ensure they do not miss to accomplish any task they are required to do.

You can type these tasks on your phone and set a reminder to alert you when the tasks or assignments are almost due. Check off each task you have accomplished each day to help you know what is left to be done and what you have accomplished so far.

Finishing your assignments on the deadline set by your lecturer is commendable. However, this may not always work to your advantage as unforeseen events that require your attention may come up, causing you to delay handing in your assignment.

To ensure this rarely happens, always set earlier deadlines for yourself. You can have a goal of finishing your assignments 3 days to a week before the lecturers deadline. You even get more time to relax or take care of other matters once your assignments are out of the way.

(https://unsplash.com/photos/DUmFLtMeAbQ)

This is one of the best studying tips for college students. Studying ahead of the lecturer will help you understand things much easier during lectures. It also becomes easier to do your assignments as you have most of the information you require. You also spend less time researching which reduces the amount of time you need to complete some of your assignments.

You may believe that getting adequate sleep is a waste of time but it is a requirement. Getting sufficient rest and sleep is important as it helps you be more productive; you concentrate better and you work better.

It is recommended that you get 7 to 8 hours of sleep each day. If you sleep less, you can take a short afternoon nap if possible, between 30 minutes to an hour.

Assignments are not meant to rob you of your social life and cause you anxiety. Your experience will depend on how organized you are. Once you have all the materials you need, get started on your assignments right away and avoid procrastination.

Having the right goals and priorities will also enable you to make sure you do the important things first, helping you avoid the unnecessary stress and anxiety caused by the last-minute rush to finish your work.

Jeff Blaylock is a professional writer and editor. He loves to share practical tips with students to help them have a smoother experience in school. Jeff is also a life coach who helps students and others to make life changes in order to be more productive in school and at work.

Link:
8 Tips On How To Get Ahead Of Your Assignments - The Libertarian Republic

Bernie Sanders may find kinship talking politics with Quebecs nationalist party Bloc Qubcois, while Cory Booker and the UKs Liberal Democrats would see eye-to-eye. As for Buttigieg, he could comfortably hang with Italys Forza Italia.

That is according to analysis presented by the Political Compass, a website that attempts to demystify political ideologies. The site doesnt list its maintainers beyond noting the content is property of Pace News Ltd., but the New York Times says its the work of Wayne Brittenden a journalist from the UK. Brittenden hosts Political Compasss podcast.

Terms like conservative, social democrat, and liberal can be difficult to understand when talking across borders. A politician calling herself conservative in one country might be considered liberal for supporting the same policies in another nation.

However, using data from Political Compass, we can compare them on the same playing field. It maps ideologies of politicians and parties on two axes, one economic and one social.

The scale running left-to-right represents economic positions, whereas the top-to-bottom scalefrom authoritarian to libertarianis reflective of social views. Data for each country is from their most-recent national election. For Canada that was this year, while for New Zealand that is 2017.

While the creators of the Political Compass frequently categorize and analyze the politicians and parties in upcoming elections around the world, the centerpiece of the site is a tool that allows you to place yourself on the political spectrum, too. It can be an illuminating way to understand how your personal politics compare to world leaders both past and present.

According to the site, UK prime minister Boris Johnson once called it fascinating. Today, it places the ideologies of Johnsons Conservative party near both the UKIP and Brexit parties, as well as Donald Trump.

The website doesnt disclose its exact methodology of how it places politicians and parties on the quadrant, but says it considers speeches, manifestos, and sometimes voting records. It also has a lengthy section addressing the common criticisms it receives.

Original post:
How the 2020 US Democratic candidates compare to politicians around the world - Quartz

This article first appeared on Philanthropy Daily on November 5, 2019.

I dont have very much to addto the long list of obituaries and articleswritten about the recent death of David Koch. But Darren Dochuk, a historian at Notre Dame, used this event toremindthe readers ofPolitico Magazineabout another pair of conservative brothers who became significant philanthropists: J. Howard Pew (1882-1971) and his brother, Joseph Pew (1894-1963).

The Pews, he says, spent their oil fortune remaking the GOP in their libertarian and conservative Christian image. According to Dochuk, the Pews became enraged at what they considered a dictatorial attempt by Washington to squash the libertarian principles on which their companyand, they believed, their countrywere built and then fought back against the New Deal in every way they could.

Some comparisons between the two sets of brothers are accurate. J. Howard Pew, like the Koch brothers, was a libertarian. I am less clear about his brothers views because Joseph Pew was not a writer like J. Howard Pew was, but its accurate to say that Joseph Pew was a conservative. The Pews in the 1930s did buy popular magazines and sponsor radio shows to provide readers and listeners with a free-market viewpoint.

But two differences between the 1930s and today are clear. First, the Democratic Party was far more dominant in the 1930s than either party is today. In 1937, for example, the Senate had 77 Democrats, along with two Farmer-Labor senators and one Progressive senator who caucused with them. The Republicans only had 16 senators.

Second, as David Burnham reminds us inA Law Unto Itself(1989), the Roosevelt Administration frequently used the Internal Revenue Service as a weapon against its enemies. This has one consequence in the history of philanthropy in the case of the Annenberg Foundation. Moses Annenberg, in his old age, was convicted and jailed on income tax evasion charges that were questionable. He died shortly after he was released from prison. Annenbergs son, Walter Annenberg, was a conservative who introduced Margaret Thatcher to Ronald Reagan. But after seeing what the state did to Moses Annenberg, Walter Annenberg made sure that the Annenberg Foundation did not advance conservative views in his lifetime, which allowed the foundation to be easily captured by the left after his death.

Joseph Pews efforts on behalf of conservative Republicans led Democratic National Committee chairman Robert M. Hannegan to denounce him in 1944 as one of the wealthy group of little-known, power-hungry men whose steady stream of money dominates the Republican party. But Pews efforts took a great deal of courage, particularly given the politicization of the IRS at the time.

I think J. Howard Pew was a more significant figure in philanthropy than Joseph Pew, primarily because of his grantmaking in the 1950s. By all accounts, J. Howard Pew was a very active donor. Randy Richardson, who was president of the Smith Richardson Foundation for several years, told me that Pew was a little man who wouldnt stop talking and once monopolized the conversation during a train trip between New York and Washington.

Howard Pew was also a forceful advocate of donor intent. He made sure that the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust, would acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy, the values of a free market, and the paralyzing efforts of government controls on the lives and activities of people.

Today, we associate the Pew name with moderate bipartisan organizations like the Pew Charitable Trust (sic) and the Pew Research Center, says Dochuk. Well, the reason we do this is because Rebecca Rimel, in her quarter-century as president of the Pew Charitable Trusts, transformed the organization from a collection of seven independent, but related foundations funding conservative, libertarian, and Philadelphia-based causes into a nonprofit promoting corporate goodthink. (I write about Rimelhere.)

But the stories of the Pews and the Kochs are not yet comparable because the Koch wealth is still controlled by founder Charles Koch, who appears hale and vigorous, but who is also 84.

This why we need to pay attention to Charles Kochs son, Chase Koch*, born in 1977 and the only second-generation Koch who could be a plausible successor, since hes the only child of Charles Koch interested in philanthropy and David Kochs children are all under age 25. Politicoreporter Maggie Severns profiles Chase Koch inthispiece.

Severns reports that Chase Koch was fortified with libertarian philosophy at an early age, spending Saturday afternoons home from elementary school listening to the works of F.A. Hayek as books on tape. But Severns says that the younger Koch practices what one might call a kinder, gentler, libertarian philanthropy. So the Koch nonprofits are starting to practice what the insiders in Wichita call the shift towards cooperation rather than confrontation with the left.

Weve seen the shift in several ways, first in the Kochalliance with the left on criminal justice reformfollowed by new efforts in foreign policy and, in September 2019, immigration through the Common Ground initiative.

These moves could be a smart way for the Kochs to reach out to rather than fight their political enemies. But they could also be the first signals of the Kochs philanthropy beginning to submit to the ideas of its political opponents.

Its too early to tell what sort of leader Chase Koch will be. But if the Kochs do not want their philanthropy to suffer the fate of that of the Pews, Id suggest they carefully studythe problems of preserving donor intentin perpetual foundations.

Image credit:Truthout.org/CC BY-NC-SA(modifications made)

* Chase Kochs full name is Charles Chase Koch, but he prefers not to use his first name.

Read the original here:
The Kochs and the Pews - Capital Research Center